It's really more of just polite suggestion these days, sadly. Except any time they vote against legalized abortion or minority issues. Then the rulings are rigidly enforced.
Legalized abortion needs to be a law, like the democrats promised for decades but never delivered. When the court invents rights then the court can just revoke it. Can't if it's a law.
This is not true. Many laws banning abortion remained on the books, and the current dystopian bounty hunting system that Texas has was designed to evade Roe v Wade.
This is because Roe decided that a woman has a constitutional right to privacy from her state government while she is pregnant, and that the state's natural interest in the pregnancy only allows them to ban abortion in the third trimester.
Casey was not as unanimous of a ruling, but the assenting opinions made it clearer that a woman's right to an abortion before the point of fetal viability was an extension of her own absolute right to her body.
I firmly believe that the right to an abortion is and has always been granted by the wording of the Constitution, but I also think that the issue is too important for Congress to leave it to jokers like Thomas and Alito.
Courts absolutely can nullify laws. That's one of the major purposes of the SCOTUS. And you think this SCOTUS would hesitate to just declare such a law unconstitutional?
Of course the courts can but in practice never do. The 2A community has been dealing with the courts reticence to deal with patently unconstitutional laws for the last 100 years.
SCOTUS literally just de-fanged the Voting Rights Act, specifically the part protecting minority representative districts.
That's why we recently saw every red state pass new congressional district maps which split up minority representative districts and combine the pieces with deep red rural districts.
We will see how that plays out. In this year's elections, Trump is going to be so unpopular that unless he sends goon squads to the polls, the gerrymander might collapse.
In the future, I would certainly like to see a move to smaller, less-stable districts to discourage this behavior.
Yes and your suggestion otherwise betrays your ill informed idea of how this current court has ruled.
They were practically hand picked to oppose the case law of the two pro-abortion decisions. Their other opinions are broadly _judicially_ conservative which means exactly what you're asking, a hesitancy to nullify laws.
Their opposition to the abortion rulings is largely formed out of a hesitancy to act as pseudo-legilatures. They would not overturn a law that was passed by the government unless it was blatantly unconditional.
Whenever an issue is settled they can't use it to ask for donations. As long as the problem lasts forever they can make money from it. The goal of an organization is that which brings in the money.
Abortion has been a hot-button issue for half a century. It's not that easy to find issues which inspire so much slobbering from the conservative base - because this one is at the intersection of women's rights, babies, and overbearing government responses, conservatives lose their minds over it. It's also a doomed cause - the recent SC mifiprestone case cited that the number of abortions happening in southern states is now greater than it was before the ban.
They're not abandoning this issue, no matter how many GOP leaders force their mistresses into abortions. It's just too good at mobilizing the base.
-SCOTUS majority